The grumblers were picking up on a strategy that has been under way for some time — a “course correction,” as Fox chief Roger Ailes put it last fall — with the network distancing itself from the tea party cheerleading that characterized the first two years of President Barack Obama’s presidency. Lately, Fox has increasingly promoted its straight-news talent in the press and conducted some of the toughest interviews and debates of the Republican primary season. Just last week, it hired the openly gay liberal activist Sally Kohn as a contributor.

They also describe the following incident:

After the Tucson shooting last year, when criticism rained down on Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck for their violent rhetoric, Ailes moved to lower the temperature, telling Russell Simmons, “I told all of our guys, ‘Shut up, tone it down, make your argument intellectually.’”

Politico then points to George Soros and Media Matters involvement:

He said that pressure went beyond the $1 million that Soros gave Media Matters in October 2010 “to hold Fox News accountable.”

“We talked to a private investigator who interviewed representatives or employees of News Corporation about the threats and intimidation against them for going after Soros,” he said.

The author then quotes Cliff Kincaid, president of America’a Survival, who had a whole booth at CPAC dedicated to questioning Fox’s programming choices:

“What happened is they buckled under pressure from George Soros and his operatives to get rid of Glenn Beck,” said Kincaid, who wants Beck back on the air so he can continue his “investigative journalism” into Soros’s influence on the media.

Of course being Politico, they could not resist quoting a birther group—nothing like painting conservative concerns about Fox programming as the rantings of the conspiracy minded. Nevertheless, they do show that Fox is making a “course correction” and conservatives should be concerned. Luckily, conservative websites, like Redstate, are filling part of the void created by Fox’s actions and this is creating an opportunity for these sites to increase their “viewership”.

Jobs are created in the subsidized industry. However, the prosperity government planners promise does not materialize because the industries that would have grown are deprived of funds and languish. The government planners could not foresee which industries will grow (and may not care if it serves a political purpose). Countries that choose this approach have seen few successes and far more catastrophes.

The reason centralized, government winner-picking approaches so frequently fail is not just because the government picks the wrong industry to support. No, when governments make their choice, the country’s leaders create bureaucracies and legislation directing the country’s limited resources into the government’s chosen path. Should circumstances change and the projections of the government experts prove to be incorrect, or other opportunities arise; the country is slow or unable to adjust. In economic theory, this is called “path dependency”.

Stalin’s Russia picked manufacturing over its other industries, Asian governments picked memory chip production over other goods, politicians in US picked housing over other sectors of the economy, and Obama picked one particular solar cell type over other energy sources. All these picks proved to be wrong. Industries deprived of funds were unable to create the future and the people suffered—Suffered at the whims of government officials who were supposed to serve them.

So is Santorum picking winners and losers like a central planner? I have read a lot of comments here on Redstate concerned that Santorum is doing just that. They believe that his proposed 0% tax on manufacturing corporations, favors manufacturers at the expense of other industries. The thinking is that by lowering taxes on manufacturers, taxes must be higher on other industries thus discouraging production in these other industries and forcing the US on one path (manufacturing) and inhibiting our ability to pursue more profitable industries. As we have seen, concerns over a country creating a path dependency by picking winners and losers are justified –if there were no other economic considerations.

If there were no other considerations, Santorum’s policy of focusing on manufacturing would be of grave concern. However, there are other factors to consider. While economists agree that discriminatory government policies may create dangerous path dependencies, they also agree that tax policy should be directed in a way that:

1) Generates revenue with the fewest distortions and
2) Creates the least amount of damages or unintended consequences.

Our high corporate tax rates have caused corporations around the world to avoid locating in the US, but some industries more than others. Certain industries are more sensitive to differences in world tax rates than others. Pharmaceutical companies still locate in the US because the access to research centers is worth the higher tax rates imposed. However, the benefits of locating in the US do not always outweigh the costs imposed by our tax system.

Manufacturing is, by its nature, very competitive and in our global marketplace the benefits of locating in one country over another may be very small. As such, our high tax rates may, be killing this industry. If this is true, lower (or even 0%) tax rates on manufacturing (even at the expense of higher rates on other industries), may result in stronger growth and even greater tax revenues than our current system (even though under Santorum’s plan the corporate rate is 0%, those who own the stock will pay taxes as will the employees) Santorum expresses this logic well when he states:

“Why are we going to treat retailers and Wal-Mart and restaurants and florists different than we treat manufacturers? Because retailers don’t move their operations to China. They don’t move them to Mexico. Because we have to compete for those jobs, and if we don’t effectively compete, we lose those jobs”

Additionally, manufacturing industries also create good paying jobs at all skill levels. People currently requiring public assistance might instead be employed in jobs that relieve the public doles. Thus, rather than harming the economy, Santorum’s plan could shrink the size of government and bring in greater tax revenues. Therefore, while some might consider Santorum’s plan unfair to non-manufacturers, we conservatives should remind ourselves of one simple principle:

Taxes should be imposed not for the purposes of fairness but to raise tax revenue in the most effective manner possible.

UPDATE: Several posters have asked these questions: 1)How are taxes damaging and what damage is done by taxes? 2) Don’t taxes harm every industry the same?

# 1

Taxes are damaging because they can create job losses, lost opportunities, and reductions in people’s happiness. Taxes can cause trades that would have taken place not to take place. Taxes artificially increase the cost to a firm (or consumer). These increased costs may cause the producer to decide not to produce the good or cause the consumer to not purchase the good resulting in firms not hiring as many workers and consumers not getting the benefit of the good.

Income taxes discourage people from investing in new businesses (or having the money to doing so) because if the government gets to keep a portion of those profits, the investor may decide the risk is not worth the reduced reward. Income taxes also discourage people from working as much because it reduces the reward to their labor efforts.

US corporate tax rates are the highest in the world and we even tax overseas earnings of companies that dare locate in the US. These taxes are VERY damaging. Companies that might have located here decide to locate elsewhere in the world. Jobs are not created in the US and more people are put on public doles.

So yes taxes are very damaging. Sometimes they are needed because the damage created by the tax are outweighed by the benefits received when the government spends this money wisely (We are better off because the government fought WWII even if it did damage the markets taxed)

#2

Taxes do not harm every industry by the same amount. Take an extreme example. Suppose a small country has two industries: Gold mines and manufacturing. Suppose we tax all corporations that in this small country at the same rate of 35%. (Liberal Mecha) Will the gold mines shut down? Probably not. The gold is only located within that country and while they do not want to pay the taxes, it may still be worth extracting the gold even at this high tax rate. But what about the manufacturing industries? Imagine that they produce goods that are sold around the world and not just within the taxing country. Manufacturing companies may have chosen to locate within this country because it offered a slight cost advantage. But now that the manufacturer has to pay 35% of their profits to the government. The slight cost advantage will now be overwhelmed by the increased tax rate. The manufacturers will leave causing unemployment, lost opportunites for trade, and if there is a social safety net more people on the public dole.

Such a uniform tax rate would not only be devastating but it would also be cruel to the people who were thrown out of work by the government’s actions. Since revenue needs to be raised, the question is what is the best way to raise that revenue doing the least harm to consumers, producers, and employees.

Of course the best option is to reduce government spending so taxes do not need to be as high and so burdensome. I believe both Santorum or Gingrich would reduce spending more than Romney. Thus taxes under either of them can be lower and less burdensome.

N   O    T         A   N   Y         M  O  R  E  !

Rasmussen shows Santorum down by 4 to Obama but Romney DOWN BY 10!
I stated in earlier diary that Romney would be done if Republicans ever thought he did not have best chance to win. I will therefore stick with my original analysis and say:

R    O    M    N    E    Y       I   S       D    O    N    E ! !

Before reading, in fairness to Mr. Romney, he did oppose this provision originally and his veto was overridden. However, he overturned a ruling by the Department of Health that would have protected the Catholic institutions from being forced to violate their personal convictions. I believe you will agree that what is described below is very troubling. Read the account and commentary below.

Are you ready? Remember, now, this is seven years ago. December 9th, 2005. Sitting down, Snerdley? “In a shocking turn-around, Massachusetts’s Governor Mitt Romney announced yesterday,” which would have been December 8th, 2005, “that Roman Catholic and other private hospitals in the state will be forced to offer emergency contraception to sexual assault victims under new state legislation, regardless of the hospitals’ moral position on the issue. The Republican governor had earlier defended the right of hospitals to avoid dispensing the ‘morning-after pill’ on the grounds of moral dissent. The Boston Globe reported that Romney’s flip on the issue came after his legal counsel, Mark D. Nielsen, concluded Wednesday,” again, we’re talking 2005 here, “that the new law supersedes a preexisting statute related to the abortifacient pill.” The morning-after pill.

What we have here is another telling sign of just how similar, if you will, Romneycare is to Obamacare.

This last sentence is damning against Romney and one many of us here on Redstate have been asking again and again: How can we nominate a man who supported the government take-over of health care even if it was “just at the state level”?

Rush continues with the following Boston Globe story on the matter:

The Boston Globe story on this December 9th, 2005: “Governor Mitt Romney reversed course on the state’s new emergency contraception law yesterday, saying that all hospitals in the state will be obligated to provide the morning-after pill to rape victims. The decision overturns a ruling made public this week by the state Department of Public Health that privately run hospitals could opt out of the requirement if they objected on moral or religious grounds. Romney had initially supported that interpretation, but he said yesterday that he had changed direction after his legal counsel, Mark D. Nielsen, concluded Wednesday that the new law supersedes a preexisting statute…”

So to be clear: the state Department of Public Health that privately run hospitals could opt out of the requirement if they objected on moral or religious grounds. But Romney OVERTURNED THIS DECISION.

Romney needs to answer:

1) Did governor Romney reject protecting the Church’s freedoms based only one man, his legal council?

6) Did he consider that the U.S. Constitution might prohibit a state from taking such actions and contact the US Attorney General?

This is very troubling…

We know we do not want to go down the direction Obama wants us to go. We know Obama believes in state control and this creates a lot of fear in common sense people. We fear what will happen if we lose this election: ObamaCare will become part of everyday Americans’ lives. People will come to depend upon it. And so, yet another government program is created. One that cannot be opposed because any change might harm some people.

These are reasonable fears. Romney voters correctly figure that anything designed by Democrats must lead to big government. But where Romney voters are different is that they believe systems designed by Republicans and designed to be carried out by the states will all be–wonderful market-driven solutions making everyone’ lives better with government not interfering in vital decisions.

Government, Romney voters believe, will not be intrusive under a Romney designed system. And they believe even if Romney’s plan is not very good—the Democrats’ plan would be much worse. There is an amount of truth in this belief. For example, Bush’s Medicare part D designed with market incentives rather than government run directives, for all its faults, actually came in under cost projections (first time I can recall for any government program)

So is Romney care designed in the same fashion as Medicare part D?

Under Medicare part D:

“The standard benefit is defined in terms of the benefit structure and not in terms of the drugs that must be covered”

Is this how ObamaCare is structured? RomneyCare?

No. Both ObamaCare and RomneyCare specify exactly WHAT must be covered. In recent days, we have seen the failure of this type of approach—Catholics who do not believe it is ethical to use birth control are being FORCED to purchase plans that include this coverage. At this moment, Catholic churches are risking huge fines by refusing to agree to this ObamaCare provision. But this is just one example. There are hundreds of other decisions about what will be covered or not covered. So there are decisions about who will get care and who will not.

Who decides this and is RomneyCare any better?

“RomneyCare calls for the state’s Connector to specify which benefits must be included in health plans (Section 101)”

Gee, under RomneyCare a government official tells you what you get when you buy insurance. You have no say. Does that sound market oriented to you? Is this like Medicare Part D, that leaves the decision of what drugs are covered to the plan chosen by the customer? Does RomneyCare enable people to get the coverage THEY want? NO and NO.

So how do we convince Romney supporters to change their mind? That a man who deisgned this type of system and does not speak out against this government intrusion is not right to be a Republican President?

I am afraid Romney voters are so afraid of Obama that even after reading the above they will just simple say ‘Still, he is better than Obama and maybe we can sway his views’

SO WHAT CAN BE DONE TO STOP ROMNEY IF HIS VOTERS ONLY CARE ABOUT WINNING?

The answer is simple: We must show them that Romney is likely to lose. That is the only thing that will convince them. So what this means is that we must show them the attacks the left will make on Romney. This does not mean we agree with these types of attacks but Romney voters must be shown that Romney is not likely to win–otherwise they will keep supporting Romney.

I suggest a series of ads based upon what Democratic consultants tell you they will attack him on. Once Romney voters are no longer confident that Romney can win, taking a chance with Newt or Santorum will not seem so scary since they know these men are fighting for something worth believing in–less government control over our lives. Not just winning for winning sake.

His article in Forbes states:

“In his first months in office, in early 1981, Reagan actually dithered on moving on his tax cut. He conceded to watering down Kemp-Roth, and he actually had to be convinced by Democrats that the top rate of the income tax had to be taken down all at once, instead of in phases.

Smelling blood, in spring of that year Democrats started to offer alternatives to Reagan’s tax cut, in the form of smaller, more “reasonable” tax cuts. Crucially, these did not index the tax code against inflation, as the Reagan bill would soon propose and has been a beloved staple in the tax code since indexing came into effect in 1985.

In stepped – Newt Gingrich. Gingrich, a second-term Representative, led an “Economic Recovery Working Group” in the House whose purpose was to show “what each member can do to help the Reagan tax cut” against its Democratic alternatives.

The group gave daily briefings and issued strategy memos on how to get the job done in the House. “Emphasize that the Reagan program is a real tax cut; and that the O’Neill/Rostenkowski program will mean a real tax increase for most Americans by 1984” was the gist of one memo. This particular point is the one Reagan would seize on in the famous chart (designed by Entin) that he presented to the American people in a televised address in late July, which closed the deal in Congress.

Had these actions not been taken:

had people like Newt Gingrich not acted in 1981, we would have had the alternative tax cut that would have been unrecognizable from any of Jimmy Carter’s tax shavings  of the 1970s.

We have heard much in the last week or two about how Gingrich was a critic of Reagan, how he really had nothing to do with Supply Side policies, and how his claims to part of the Reagan revolution were false. I even mistakenly wrote that Gingrich learned from Reagan–that he was a back-bencher, a student.

Now it is apparent that Gingrich was not just a student, he was not a back-bencher. Gingrich was more like a colonel in Reagan’s Revolution. He fought for the Reagan revolution and the LIES that we have been told about his role, lead me to say:

Florida: You have been lied to. Now it will be up to future states and contests to correct for the misinformation you were given. I ask people in the states to follow to consider carefully when you hear the establishment claiming this or that about Gingrich– just remember they tried to rewrite history and leave out the invaluable contributions of one Newt Gingrich.

The states included in this drop-out bet will be:

Nevada
Maine
Colorado
Minnesota
Missouri
Arizona
Michigan
Washington

At the end, whomever has the fewest delegates from these states would drop out.

This would be right before Super Tuesday.

TO BE CLEAR: I have marked out Romney to make clear that this was Perry’s Record)

As we now know, Romney Perry voted for a Democrat for President about 20 years ago. But look at his record since then:

He refused the temption to institute a government run health system.
He governed as a conservative as governor.
He not only balanced his budget but when revenues fell he refused to raid the rainy-day fund.
He pushed to pass legislation to limit frivolous lawsuits and instituted “loser pays”
He pushed to limit needless regulations.
He spent $400 million of his own state’s money to fight illegal immigration.
His state was clearly the largest job creator adding millions of jobs while the rest of the country lost jobs.
Reduced spending per capita during his time.
Instituted 67 tax cuts
Did not impose tax on guns.
Did not support Kennedy gun control laws.
Nominated only the most conservative candidates he could find and fought for them.
Defunded Planned Parenthood and made sure they were not given a special line in any legislation.
When he faced a tough re-election battle, he did not run.

Hmmmmm. Wait. Maybe I’m confused…Was it someone else who did this??? Is this Romney’s record? (UPDATE: Romney did support Kennedy’s gun laws, did impose higher taxes on guns,and did impose government control over health care, etc.)

Oh well. It does not matter. As long as a “Republican” wins everything will be great…

> 70 percent of manufacturers pay income taxes at individual rates. Therefore, any tax increase on individuals is a tax increase on manufacturers.

This means every time Obama talks about raising individual rates he would be increasing taxes on manufacturers and killing jobs.

In addition, since so many manufacturers are paying at the individual rate, inheritance taxes can force families to break apart, sell, or close their family’s manufacturing business. Therefore, the National Association of Manufacturers wants to:

Institute permanent lower tax rates on estates to protect family manufacturing businesses

Republicans needs to consider what this means:

Romney refuses to lower individual rates, so he is keeping rates on manufacturers high- companies we need to create jobs. He also only reduces the corporate rate to match Europe’s rate of 25%.

Santorum eliminates the corporate tax on manufacturing–but only 30% of manufacturers, the corporate ones, would immediately benefit. (And many of these are very good at avoiding taxes. Right GE?) Although over time, reducing the high corporate rate might encourage corporations to stop avoiding the US for their manufacturing facilities. Santorum taxes individuals at 28% which better than the current 35%.

Gingrich’s plan to give every individual the option to pay a 15% flat tax helps the 70% of manufacturers who pay at the individual rate and gives them a big boost. He also reduces the corporate rate to 12.5% which should encourage corporations to locate here (obviously not as much as Romney’s 0% on Corporations but Santorum would tax manufacturers who pay the individual rate 28% as opposed to Gingrich’s 15%)

Also, unlike other parts of the world, the US taxes corporate earnings from overseas. As the National Association of Manufacturers states it:

The United States is unique among major industrial nations in taxing a company’s global income.

To their credit, each Republican candidate supports changing tax law so US manufacturers are no longer at such a large disadvantage.

The Obama administration, on the other hand, fails to recognize the following facts:

95 percent of consumers live outside the U.S., making it critical for manufacturers to have access to global markets through free trade agreements.

Currently, there are dozens of free trade agreements being negotiated around the world, but the U.S. is a party to just one.

The Obama Administration’s failure to act is devastating:

Over the past three years, the United States has amassed a $70 billion manufactured goods trade surplus with countries with which we have free trade agreements. During that same time, the U.S. ran a $1.3 trillion deficit in manufactured goods with countries that do not have trade agreements with us.

The sum-up the situation very clearly:

Through inaction on free trade agreements, we are ceding market share to our competitors.

Manufacturers are also solidly against ObamaCare (and why would RomneyCare at the state level be any better?) They are very direct:

Repeal the 2010 health care law.

In addition to the points made in this post, the National Association of Manufacturers describes how:

The National Labor Relations Board is killing manufacturers.

Government regulators are NOT required to administer regulations using the lowest cost impact.

How lawsuits are used as defacto regulation and how lawsuits add 2% more to the cost of manufacturing in the US compared to the rest of the world. This may not sound like much, but keep in mind that it is estimated that Wal-Mart destroyed their competitors with only a 1% cost advantage.

So while Obama and Romney want to keep individual tax rates the same. If we want to help the 70% of US manufacturers who pay at the individual rate grow create jobs, Obama and Romney are the wrong answer. Maybe this lack of understanding is why Obama hung out with Radicals and why Romney voted for a Democrat Presidential candidate in 1992.

REPUBLICAN CONTRACT WITH AMERICA

FIRST, require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply equally to the Congress;
SECOND, select a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse;
THIRD, cut the number of House committees, and cut committee staff by one-third;
FOURTH, limit the terms of all committee chairs;
FIFTH, ban the casting of proxy votes in committee;
SIXTH, require committee meetings to be open to the public;
SEVENTH, require a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase;
EIGHTH, guarantee an honest accounting of our Federal Budget by implementing zero base-line budgeting.

If Congress had held to the concept of #1, they would not have been allowed to inside trade.

I am amazed at how much the Contract with America still applies to America 17 years later. Even today when we talk about “budget cuts”, these are usually not really cuts. Congress plays a dirty game. The way it works is simple. Suppose Congress has published plans to increase every budget by 5% (whether needed or not) and for program X, this means $500 billion more over the next 10 years. Now suppose some budget minded conservative believes we only need to spend $300 billion more–this is called a cut.

This practice allows people who favor big government to demonize people who want to limit the growth of government by being able to say that just not increasing spending as much is a cut. Zero Based budgeting eliminates this practice. #8 on the Contract with America.

I like the original Contract with America and I do not find it “embarrassing” at all.

Before the 2008 financial crisis, 26 million people needed food stamps. Today, 44.7 million people are on food stamps. That is an increase of 18.4 million people.

So has Obama made it better? When Obama entered office in 2008, 28.2 million people were on food stamps. So the number of people on Food stamps has increased by 16.5 million. To be fair, we have to give his economic policies a chance to work, so let’s just look at the number on food stamps since 2010. In 2010, 40 million people were on food stamps. By end of 2011, 44.7 million–another 4.7 million just between these years. But if the economy was getting better FEWER people should need food stamps.

Mr. Gingrich can not only say that Obama is the Food Stamp President, but that when Republicans gained control of the house food stamp use was still increasing. But after 4 years of Republican control in the house, 7.7 million fewer people needed food stamps.

http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/SNAPsummary.htm

CNN used to be the conservative’s choice until Ted Turner pushed it leftward. Now it appears that FOX is going the way of CNN. But why??

It may not be admitted but I believe the left’s boycott of Fox is having an effect. Big corporations cannot afford to lose any customers. The Left boycotts and refuses to buy from people who support conservative thought. The Right is believes in free speech and individualism–we do not boycott. So, any business that does not want to lose customers, ceases to advertise on conservative media. This is costing FOX billions in ad revenue because they do not get the large corporations to advertise with them.

Large corporations are the most sensitive to boycotts. Why?? Large companies have a large percentage of the market. Nearly everyone is a potential customer. If 10% of the population decides they will not buy from you, they lose a tremendous amount of sales. A small company, on the other hand, with a small percentage of the market, say 2% is not affected as harshly. It is a simple mathematical relationship. If 10% of the population will not buy from a small company, they might lose 0.02% market share, but this loss can be made up from attracting the almost 90% of the population who are still willing to buy from you. Small companies can easily make up for the 0.02% drop in sales that are lost to boycott because advertising on conservative media is very effective for these small companies. Advertising rates are low since they are not in competition with the big corporations for Ad spots and they reach a very active demographic with money to spend (conservative work and spend money)

Have you not noticed, that most of Fox’s advertisers are smaller companies? If Fox could attract bigger corporations, they would be able to charge much higher rates and make more money. It is my belief that Fox News is hoping to become acceptable enough to the Left in this country to gain big corporate accounts.

I believe this is folly. People watch Fox News because they cover news while respecting conservative views. As they move leftward, Americans will start looking for another home. Already, I get more of my news online than I get from Fox News. My hope is that conservatives on this site will document the use of Leftist language on Fox and that we can convince Fox that any Leftward move, would result in low ratings and reduced profits, but we must be prepared to look elsewhere for our news.

As I write this, I see Fox pushing the story of Gingrich being so hated that people are trying to recruit another moderate to run against him: Mitch Daniels.

This week, Romney strategist Stuart Stevens told the Washington Examiner that the campaign was becoming wary of debates. The Tampa debate would be the 18th major debate of the primary season, though just the second among the four remaining candidates — Romney, Gingrich, Texas Rep. Ron Paul and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum.
“There are too many of these,” Stevens was quoted as saying. “We have to bring some order to it. We haven’t accepted Florida. … It’s kind of like a cruise that’s gone on too long.”

What is going on? This would be political suicide. Romney would lose Florida and then be a laughing stock. I posted on Redstate my belief that once Romney’s electability was questioned that he would be done as a candidate. But you would think he try to find traction among Northern voters, so why scuttle your campaign before trying?

Could Romney know he is doomed and be thinking of running as a Third-Party Candidate? I doubt this, but what is his campaign thinking? Sure Newt has been dominating the debates, but to skip a debate? It looks cowardly. Of course, Romney was the only candidate unwilling to debate Newt one-on-one.

I have to say, it would be a much more interesting race if Romney were to drop out. Gingrich versus Santorum. But, alas, I assume Romney will show up anyway. If he doesn’t debate. I’m sure he will say “I have to work to release my taxes by Friday Night excuse”.

Romney opposed Reagan.
Opposed Forbe’s Flat tax and proposes virtually nothing on taxes.
Supports Washington directing health care.

The Republican party has left me. I want to know why I should stay in this party?

I hate to say this but it is time for conservatives to show the same loyalty to one another. I don’t care how it gets done–draw straws but someone or two someones on the conservative side should at least suspend their campaigns in SC. My thinking is once Romney starts losing he will drop like a stone. Then the conservative candidates can duke it out amongst themselves. WHY???

Republicans don’t like Romney except for the fact they think he can win. Once that is gone–the race is over for him. Why would Republicans like a man who opposed Reagan? Supported Paul Tsongas (a Democrat against HW Bush)? Instituted government health care? Spent $50,000 of his own money to oppose Forbe’s flat tax? Burdened companies with tremendous debt that led many of them to bankruptcy? Required gun owners to pay $100 to buy a gun? Allowed the legislature to include Planned Parenthood but no adoption groups in his health bill?

Romney has been talking like a conservative, but I do not buy it. Let one candidate take Romney down and the floodgates will open and then we can have a conservative on conservative contest. Not a RINO who wants to create government run health care–just at the state level. Romney proposes to fund state provided health insurance through Federal Government. This will give us government run health care carried out by the states at the behest of Washington.

Some may wish to defend Romney. It will be a difficult task. Surveys show Republicans have become the representatives of the working class (Isn’t that funny considering what Democrats talk about)

But how will Romney play to the Republican working class worker?

That the risk of the company going bankrupt is increased is no big deal. Sure, some companies will go bankrupt because they cannot weather some future storm, but storms are unpredictable. Investors can simply diversify their portfolios to other highly leveraged firms. After all, what are the odds that all these companies would face a decline in sales at the same time?

Besides, if a company does go bankrupt, the bank can simply sell it off to their competitors who will be glad “out of the kindness of their heart” to help a competitor in time of need. Sure, some jobs will be lost when this happens, but this will also save money and customers will benefit too! With fewer companies from whom to choose, their buying decision will be so much easier.

Rush Limbaugh, Hanity, et. al. have shown me the error of my ways. We cannot criticize someone for their business practices. To do so is obviously anti-capitalist. So Gingrich and Perry have criticized Romney for his business practices–anti-capitalist! Romney and Santorum have criticizes Republicans for not opposing certain business practices-anti-capitalist!

So what we need is a real capitalist. Someone who will let people do whatever they want. We need baseball commissioner Bud Selig. He has the track record to prove it:

When baseball players were using doping up with steroids to increase performance. Did he try to stop it? No! And it was great for the game. Look at all the home run records that were broken. As Forbes magazine pointed out he was:

known as “the Steroid Commissioner” for the blind eye he turned toward the artificial bulking up of the players throughout the 1990s and early 2000s”

But if that is not recommendation enough, he may be as good as Mitt Romney on the right to be highly leveraged!:

(Bud Selig) now faces the possibility of becoming known as “the Debt Commissioner” for the ballooning of franchise IOUs under his tenure and for letting teams sidestep league rules on debt limits.

See? A pure free market capitalist in the mold of Mitt Romney but better!. He allowed teams to sidestep those pesky league rules on debt limits. This allowed the previous owners to get maximum value for their teams. Never mind they may not have actually known enough about baseball to properly run a baseball team. They bid the highest amount with the help of bankers. Sure, some banks lost money when the Texas Rangers went bankrupt, or was it the Mets or the Dodgers. Well anyway, its not big deal if banks lose money, its not like taxpayers bail them out.

These decisions show that Bud Selig is the best-suited to run for President. Now, some may argue that some people lost their jobs when these over-leveraged companies went bankrupt. But is it the venture capitalist fault that those workers chose not to diversify their work effort just as investors diversify their portfolios?

This post is obviously an attempt at satire, but I am trying to make a serious point. Many companies have strict rules regarding maximum debt loads people opening their franchises are allowed to have. This does not make them anti-capitalist. While I am sure some companies do not have debt load restrictions and there is nothing legally or morally wrong with those decisions; we may question whether they are behaving wisely and whether it might be better if they had some rules regarding debt loads (and other bad-business behaviors).

So when I question whether Mitt Romney’s business behavior is something to be proud of, I am not anti-capitalist. I am simply pro good business practices. Sound business practices serve not only to increase profits, but also serve stock holders, debt holders, and employees in the long run; and they should be encouraged. People who seek to make profits by short-term thinking or manipulation should be rebuked. Companies in the long run only make profits when they serve the most important group: the consumer. People who manipulate the market hinder the ability of companies to perform this very valuable function. This is why capitalist countries with strong moral beliefs out-perform both their socialist and amoral capitalist counterparts.

Now the Republican party has again become home to a good number of people who want to return to the Nixon model of government.

Conservatives are the ones who have moved the nation in the right direction over the years. Reagan was right to believe that “Government is not the soluton to our problems, government is the problem”

Reagan ran on three objectives:

1) Strengthen our military
2) Cut taxes to spur incentive for entrepreneurs
3) Shrink the size of government.

Conservatives pushed the contract with America:

1.require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply to Congress;
2.select a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse;
3.cut the number of House committees, and cut committee staff by one-third;
4.limit the terms of all committee chairs;
5.ban the casting of proxy votes in committee;
6.require committee meetings to be open to the public;
7.require a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase;
8.guarantee an honest accounting of the Federal Budget by implementing zero base-line budgeting.

These ideas have strenght and principle behind them. They still have value.

Conservatives like Steve Forbes showed us that our tax code is a corrupting influence on government. That politicians manipulated the tax code to help certain groups, corporations, or rich individuals while hurting those who could not manipulate the system.

So why should I join in supporting Romney? when he: Opposed Reagan openly as recently as 1992, opposed the Contract with America, and spent $50,000 of his own money to oppose flat tax even though he was not even running for office!

Add to this, Romney’s creation of a government health program that has started to create the same type of problems in Massachucetts as seen in european health systems.

I grew up under Reagan. I know what Reagan stood for. I was proud of Reagan. Reagan was right to fight to change the Republican party within, I hope this can happen again. But already I have been forced to make my campaign donations directly to conservative candidates. I no longer trust the GOP to spend the money wisely.

I am a Reagan Republican and I refuse to go back to the Ford/Nixon progressive view.

“Therefore our laws must do everything possible to close these avenues to success and to create conditions under which people can succeed only by superior zeal and ability in serving their fellows. (This is precisely what we seek from capitalism) It provides them with a system of rewards in proportion to their output—in other words, in proportion to their success in satisfying the consumer. Under this system they must compete for the consumer’s favor.”

Also as conservatives, we know:

“laws won’t be enough, however good. If the people were so corrupt that they were constantly trying to evade the law, and if the police and judges and government were so corrupt that they made no impartial effort to the law, then even an ideal set of laws would be futile…. No, the majority of individuals must be moral. The society must live by a moral code. The individual enterpriser or trader or workman must not only fear the police, or private retaliation; he must himself believe in honest dealing, in fairness, in justice, in truthfulness, in honor…. Perhaps the greatest vice of the communist system, worse even than its failure to produce goods, was that it destroyed all sense of justice and truth, and made its only ‘morality’ consist in absolute obedience to the commands of the dictator…. But individual freedom is impossible without individual responsibility.”

“In other words, despotism may govern without faith, but liberty cannot.”

Gingrich in his attack on Romney’s Bain Capital is asking a very simple question: “Did Romney engage in “honest dealing, in fairness, in justice, in truthfulness, in honor” in his business dealings?

Was Romney acting in the best interest of consumers? Or was he simply making profits by “superior chicanery, by more clever deceit, by greater unscrupulousness, by superior ruthlessness.”?

These are fair questions to ask even if we are uncomfortable with the method of attack.

Hazlitt quotes from:
Hazlitt, Henry (2010-03-31). Time Will Run Back (LvMI) (Kindle Locations 3823-3828). Ludwig von Mises Institute. Kindle Edition.